{"id":23791,"date":"2008-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-21T18:28:41","modified_gmt":"2018-04-21T12:58:41","slug":"senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Senthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Senthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\t\t\t\t\t\nDated: 12\/12\/2008\n\nCoram\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.REGUPATHI\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH\n\nCriminal Appeal (MD)No.200 of 2008\nand\nCriminal Appeal (MD)No.201 of 2008\n\n1.Senthil\t\t\t\t... Appellant in  Crl.A.No.200\/2008\n2.Arangan\n3.Chidambaram\n4.Selvam\t\t\t\t... Appellants in Crl.A.No.201\/2008\n\nVs.\n\nThe State rep. by the\n Inspector of Police,\n Ganesh Nagar Police Station\n Pudukkottai District,\n Crime No.795 of 2006  \t\t\t... Respondent in both Appeals.\n\nAppeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. as against the order of conviction and\nsentence, dated 31.03.2008, passed in S.C.No.102 of 2007, by the Additional\nDistrict and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Pudukkottai.\n\n!For Appellants    ...  Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan\n\t\t\tS.C.\n^For Respondent    ...  Mr.P.N.Pandidurai,\n                        Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J.)<\/p>\n
\tThere were 9 accused before the trial Court of whom the appellant in
\nCrl.A.No.200 of 2008 and the appellants in Crl.A.No.201 of 2008 arrayed as
\naccused Nos.6, 1,4,7 and the acquitted accused arrayed as 2,5,8,9 respectively
\ntook their trial in S.C.No.102 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District
\nand Sessions Judge (FTC), Pudukkottai. They were convicted and sentenced to
\nimprisonment as under:\n<\/p>\n
Accused\/ Appellants\tConvicted under Section\tSentence of imprisonment
\nA-6 (Appellant in \t302 read with 34 IPC\tImprisonment for life  and to
\nC.A.No.200\/ 2008),\t\t\t\tpay a fine of Rs.3,000\/- in
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tdefault to undergo Rigorous
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tImprisonment for six months.<\/p>\n
\n\nA-1 (Appellant in \t302 IPC\t\t\tImprisonment for life  and to\nC.A.No.201 of 2008)\t\t\t\tpay a fine of Rs.3,000\/- in\n\t\t\t\t\t\tdefault to undergo Rigorous\n\t\t\t\t\t\tImprisonment for six months.\n\nA-4\t\t\t324 IPC\t\t\tSentenced to undergo Rigorous\n(Appellant in \t\t\t\t\tImprisonment for six months and to\nC.A.No.201 of 2008)\t\t\t\tpay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- in\n\t\t\t\t\t\tdefault to undergo Rigorous \t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tImprisonment for two months.\n<\/pre>\n
A-7 (Appellant in \t302 read with 34 IPC\tImprisonment for life  and to
\nC.A.No.201\/ 2008)\t\t\t\tpay a fine of Rs.3,000\/- in
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tdefault to undergo Rigorous
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tImprisonment for six months.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.These two appeals are filed by the convicted appellants who took their
\ntrials under different charges for offences as indicated above on the
\nallegations that on 16.11.2006 at 15.00 p.m. in front of the house of P.W.1 at
\nThethampatti village within the limits of Ganesh Nagar Police Station,
\nPudukkottai District formed themselves into an unlawful assembly along with
\nother acquitted accused armed with deadly weapons with intention to murder the
\ndeceased Chinnadurai (brother of P.W.1) and indiscriminately made murderous
\nattack by inflicting many vital injuries as a result of which the victim
\ninstantly fell down on the spot and then died on 24.11.2006 while undergoing
\ntreatment in the hospital due to the injuries sustained and also during the
\ncourse of the occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2, the father and son respectively of the
\ndeceased also received grievous injuries at the hands of the accused, which
\nresulted in the trial of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The case of the prosecution in short is that the appellants\/accused and
\nthe acquitted accused are the residents of the village namely, Thethampatti
\nwithin the limits of Ganesh Nagar Police Station.  A civil dispute was pending
\nbetween the family of P.W.1 and the family of A-1. On 15.11.2006, the father of
\nA-1 Mariappan died and the family members of A-1 wanted to take the dead body of
\nthe deceased through the streets where the house of the P.W.1 is situated and
\nhence the A-1 and their relatives sought permission with P.W.2, (the father of
\nthe deceased) to take the body to the cremation ground through the street
\nrunning in front of the house of P.Ws.1 and 2. But P.Ws.1 and 2 were not
\ninclined to accede the request of A-1 and their relatives. Since there is
\nformation of a separate public path way from the village to go to the cremation
\nground, P.Ws.1 and 2 approached the Village Administrative Officer and Village
\nHead and other important persons in the village and requested them to advise A-1
\nand his people to take the body of the father of A-1 through the public pathway.
\nPursuant to the request made by P.Ws.1 and 2, the family members of A-1 were
\ninstructed to take the body of the deceased Mariappan through the public
\npathway. Due to this, A-1 and his family members got annoyed and on 16.11.1996,
\nat 3.00 p.m. before taking the body to the cremation ground, A-1 along with his
\nbrother A-2, A-5 and his relatives A-3, A-4, A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9 went to the
\nhouse of P.W.1 armed with deadly weapons and shouted at them to come out of the
\nhouse. The deceased, Chinnadurai (the son of P.W.2) came out of the house and on
\nseeing Chinnadurai, Appellant No.2 (A-1, Arangan) shouted at him saying only if
\nhe was killed they could live peacefully and so saying he delivered a cut on the
\ncentre of the head of the deceased. Following that the first appellant, Senthil
\n(Appellant in Crl.A.No.200\/2008) snatched the Aruval from A-1 and delivered a
\ncut on the centre of the head of the deceased.  On seeing this, A-7 (3rd
\nAppellant in Crl.A.No.201 of 2008) assaulted the deceased with a stick on the
\nleft side of the head. The deceased become unconscious and fell down.  Then A-9
\nassaulted the deceased with a stick on his back.  While P.W.1 rushed to the
\nscene to prevent the accused from making further attacks, A-2 and A-3 delivered
\ncuts on the head of P.W.1 and when P.W.2 attempted to prevent the cut, he had
\nalso sustained injuries on his left hand. During the same transaction, A-4 and
\nA-5 delivered cuts on the head of P.W.1 when P.W.1 attempted to prevent the
\nsame, he also sustained injury on the right hand side. After committing the
\nattack, all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter,
\nP.Ws.1 and 2 and the injured Chinnadurai were taken to the Government Hospital
\nat Pudukkottai by the village people and since Chinnadurai was in very serious
\ncondition, he was taken to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and admitted
\ntherein.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn receipt of intimation from the Pudukkottai Government Hospital, P.W.14,
\nSub Inspector of Police proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 08.00 p.m.  On
\n16.11.1996 and recorded the statement of P.W.1 who was taking treatment in Ward
\nNo.41 of the hospital and returned to the police station and registered a case
\nin Crime No.795 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 IPC. Ex.P.1 is
\nthe complaint given by P.W.1 and Ex.P.6 is the copy of First Information Report
\nand P.W.14 forwarded the same to the higher officials in the Department.
\n\tP.W.19, the Investigating Officer, on receipt of the First Information
\nReport, took up investigation and on 17.11.2006 and at 10.00 A.M., proceeded to
\nthe scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 prepared an
\nobservation mahazar Ex.P.16 and rough sketch of the scene, Ex.P.17 and recovered
\nbloodstained earth and sample earth M.Os.5 and 6  under a cover of Mahazar
\nEx.P.18. On the same day, at 12.30 noon P.W.19 arrested A-1 to A-5 and recorded
\ntheir voluntary confession statements. The admissible portion of which were
\nmarked as Exs.P.19 to P.23 respectively.  Pursuant to their confession
\nstatements, M.Os.2,7,8,9,10 and 11 were recovered under the cover of Mahazars
\nExs.P.24 to 28.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.W.19, Investigating Officer took up the investigation. Since the
\ndeceased who was admitted in the Government hospital died on 24.11.2006
\nproceeded to the Government Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of
\nthe deceased in the presence of witnesses and the inquest report is marked as
\nEx.P-9.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW-11 is the Medical Officer, who on receipt of the requisition from the
\nInvestigating Officer, conducted  post-mortem on the body of the deceased on
\n25.11.2006 at 3.00 P.M. Ex.P-4 is the Post Mortem certificate wherein, the
\nDoctor has noted the following:-\n<\/p>\n
“External injuries:\n<\/p>\n
1.Sub conjunctival haemorrhages in both eyes noted.\n<\/p>\n
2.An irregular infected sutured lacerationwith intact silk sutures over the
\nvertex of scal;p measuring 4cmx4cmxbone deep with surrounding contusion.\n<\/p>\n
3.Diffuse Dense contusion over the whole of right side frontal, parietal and
\nTemporal regions.\n<\/p>\n
4.A Semicircular surgically sutured wound with intact silk sutures noted over
\nthe right side frontal, parietal and temporal regions of scalp found extending
\nfrom the middle of right side hair margin upto the front of right ear measruig
\n25cm in length found infected.\n<\/p>\n
5.Diffuses contusion over the whole of left side forehead and left frontal
\nregion of scalp.\n<\/p>\n
6.Infected Bed sores over the whole of occipital region, both parietal eminence
\nareas and saccral region.\n<\/p>\n
Internal Injuries:\n<\/p>\n
7.On reflecting the scalp skin – Thick sub scalp contusion whole of scalp –
\nRight side Temporal Bone was found surgically removed and the infected lacerated
\nBrain matter was found bulging out through this bone gap. Depressed communitted
\nfracture over the vertex of skull over an area of 4x4cm found compressing the
\nBrain matter.  Multiple radiating fissured fractures over all the bones of vault
\nskull from this fractured vertex area with fracture seperation of all the
\ncranial sutural lines. Thick extradural Haematoma and blood clots of about 600
\ngms noted over the vertex and both sides parietal regions. Bilateral subdural
\nand sub arachnoid haemorrhages with subdural basal blood clots.  Irregular
\nlaceration of whole of right sidecerebral hemishpere with complete softening and
\nblood clots and with infection by greenish yellow coloured pus.  Brain was pale
\nand oedematous.  Intracerebral haemorrhages in both sides.  Haemorrhages in the
\nregions of pons. Thalamus and Mid Brain areas.  Multiple communitted fractures
\nof right Anterior and Middle cranial fossae and irregular multiple fisssured
\nfractures of all the  other cranial fossae of base of skull.  Contusion and
\nfracture of both sides roofs of orbits, cribriform plate and ehtmoidal bone.
\nAll the above mentioned injuries were of antemortem in nature most probabily as
\na result of assault by a blunt weapon like heavy wooden log.
\n\tExtremities: cyanosed. Heart: Normal in size. All the chambers contained
\nfluid blood. Valves : Normal. Coronary vessels – patent. great vessels –
\nNormal. Lungs : c\/s both congested and oedematous. Laryunx and hyoid bone :
\nintact. Stomach : contained 200 ml of light brown coloured semisolid material
\nwith no specific smell. Mucosa – congested Liver, spleen, kidneys : c\/s
\ncongested Small intestine : Empty. Mucosa – congested No specific smell made
\nout. Bladder : Empty. Pelvis  – Intact”.\n<\/p>\n
The Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to head
\ninjuries involving the vital organ namely the brain.\n<\/p>\n
\tThereafter, P.W.18, took up the investigation and on 28.11.2006 at 10.30
\nA.M. and arrested A-7 and sent him to judicial custody and on 10.12.2006 he
\narrested A-8 at 9.00 a.m. on 10.12.06 and recorded his voluntary confession
\nstatement given by him, the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P.14.
\nPursuant to his confession, P.W.18, Investigating Officer recovered wooden log
\nM.O.3 under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.15 in the presence of P.W.10 and one
\nSenthil. Thereafter, on the same day he sent A-8 and recovered material objects
\nto the Court. Then, P.W.18, Investigating Officer arrested A-9 on 10.01.2007 at
\n10.00 a.m. near Alangudi Police Station and sent him to judicial custody on the
\nsame day and handed over the case to his successor.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe material objects were despatched to the court with Ex.P-10 requesting
\nto forward the same for chemical examination. PW-16\/Head Clerk in the Court, on
\nreceipt of the same, sent those items with a letter of the court under EX.P-10
\nto the forensic Laboratory. Exs.P-2 and P-11 are the forensic reports. On
\ncompletion of the investigation, the final report was filed against the accused
\nunder Sections  302 read with 34, 307, 323, 325, 326 read with 149 IPC before
\nthe Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The trial court on a perusal of the documents and after hearing the
\nlearned counsel framed totally eight charges as against all the accused, of
\nwhich the appellants in these appeals, are covered under charge Nos.1,2,3,4,6
\nand 7 which are follows:\n<\/p>\n
\ti)On 16.11.2006, Accused Nos.3,7,8 and 9 formed themselves into an
\nunlawful assembly and indulged in rioting and thereby committed an offence
\npunishable under Section 147 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tii)The Accused  Nos.1,2,4,5 and 6 formed themselves into an unlawful
\nassembly with deadly weapons and indulged in rioting with an intention to
\nassault the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 and thereby committed for an offence
\npunishable under Section 148 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)Accused Nos.1,6,7 and 9 with a common intention to commit the cause of
\nthe death of the deceased attacked him with deadly weapons, pursuant to which
\n24.11.2006, the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him and thereby
\nthe Accused Nos.1,6,7 and 9 committed an offence punishable under Section 302
\nIPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tiv)Accused Nos.4,6,7 and 9 stood in support of A-1 to commit the murder of
\nthe deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read
\nwith 34 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tv)During the same transaction, A-4 cut the middle finger of P.W.2 and
\nthereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tvi)During the same transaction, A-7 assaulted P.W.2 with stick and thereby
\ncommitted an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.In order to substantiate the above charges, the prosecution examined
\nP.Ws.1 to 19 marked exhibits Exs.P-1 to P-28 and M.Os.1 to 11.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.When the accused questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to
\nthe incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution against them, they denied
\ntheir complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The learned trial Judge, after assessing the oral and documentary
\nevidence adduced by the prosecution, and after considering the submissions made
\non either side, delivered his judgment convicting and sentencing as
\naforementioned. Challenging the same, the convicted accused have preferred the
\nabove Appeals. In order to appreciate the facts of the case in the proper
\nperspective, we have clubbed both the appeals together and accordingly, we are
\ndisposing the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The learned counsel for the appellants intensively contended that the
\norigin and genesis of the case is totally suppressed by the prosecution and
\ninstead the prosecution has presented a new case before this Court with false
\nevidence and fabricated documents. According to him P.Ws.1 and 2 have
\ncategorically stated that the occurrence took place on 16.11.2006 at 03.00 p.m.
\nand immediately thereafter, P.Ws.1,2 and the victim Chinnadurai were taken to
\nthe hospital by the villagers and P.Ws.1 and 2 were admitted in the Government
\nHospital, at Pudukkottai and Chinnadurai who was in serious condition was taken
\nto Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. It is the further evidence of P.W.2 that
\nimmediately after their admission in the hospital, the police arrived at the
\nGovernment Hospital, Pudukkottai.  But according to P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of
\nPolice, he received intimation from the Hospital only at 8.00 p.m. and
\nthereafter, he proceeded to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement
\nof P.W.1 and returned to the police station by 9.00 p.m. and registered a case
\nin Crime No.795 of 2006 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 448, 323,
\n324 and 307 IPC. Whereas P.W.17, the Medical Officer had stated in his evidence
\nthat P.Ws.1 and 2 were brought to the hospital by 04.10 p.m. Thus, the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the appellants by comparing the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,14
\nand 17 put forth the submissions stating that the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,14 and 17
\ncumulatively together would go to show that the injured P.Ws.1 and 2 were
\nbrought to the hospital immediately after the occurrence and further P.Ws.1 and
\n2 in their evidence also have confirmed that the police have arrived at the
\nhospital immediately after their admission in the hospital. Under such
\ncircumstances, the police should have recorded the statement of P.W.1
\nimmediately after their arrival at the hospital. But P.W.14, stated in his
\nevidence that he received intimation only by 8.00 p.m. and thereafter he
\nproceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement and returned to the police
\nstation and registered a case at 9.00 p.m. These contradictions found in the
\nevidence clearly would go to show that the complaint which would have been
\nrecorded by the police immediately after their arrival, should have been
\nsuppressed subsequently and they would have brought another complaint by falsely
\nimplicating the accused in the case. That apart, P.W.2 (father of the deceased)
\nhad also clearly stated in his evidence that the statement was recorded from him
\nby the police, while he was in hospital. But the said complaint was suppressed
\nby the prosecution and no proper explanation was given for this. The learned
\ndefence counsel continued his argument saying that it is the evidence of P.W.2
\nthat A-1 had delivered a cut on the centre of the head of the deceased with
\nAruval and thereafter, A-6 snatched the same and delivered another cut on the
\ncentre of the head of the deceased. According to prosecution, pursuant to the
\narrest and confession of A-6 on 18.11.2006, the police has recovered M.Os.2 and
\n3, Aruvals and a wooden log respectively under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.8. Thus,
\nby pointing out the evidence of P.W.2 and arrest of A-6 and the recovery made by
\nP.W.14 and P.W.18, the learned counsel for the appellants intensively contended
\nthat when it is the evidence of P.W.2 that A-6 snatched the Aruval from A-1 and
\ndelivered the cut, the question of recovery of M.O.2 and 3 Aruvals pursuant to
\nconfession statements of A-1 and A-6 is highly doubtful.  In fact, the evidence
\nof P.W.2 and recovery made by P.Ws.18 and 14 collectively go to prove that the
\nentire case of the prosecution is a concocted one. Though, it is the case of the
\nprosecution that the deceased was admitted in Thanjavur Medical College
\nHospital, immediately after the occurrence, he had died only on 24.11.2006 but
\nthe entire records pertaining to his treatment was suppressed by the
\nprosecution.  P.W.2, in his evidence stated that before the occurrence took
\nplace there was a commotion for an hour and he had also stated in his evidence
\nthat he is not aware when the police has arrived to the village and whether the
\ncommotion was going on in front of his house before the occurrence.  Thus, the
\nlearned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that had there been any
\ncommotion in front of the house where 500 to 600 people had assembled to attend
\nfuneral function of the father of A-1 definitely the police would have arrived
\nat this spot. But the vague answer of P.W.2 would show that the entire case put
\nforth by the prosecution should be an invented story. The learned counsel has
\nalso very emphatically submitted that there was a delay in sending the First
\nInformation Report to the Judicial Magistrate even though the said report was
\nregistered by P.W.15, even at 9.00 p.m. on 16.11.2006, the same was sent on the
\nnext day viz., 17.11.2006 at 10.00 a.m., which delay was not properly explained.
\nFurther, it is contended that  there are lot of infirmities in the evidence of
\nProsecution witnesses and subsequent improvement also had been made to suit the
\ncase of prosecution. The contentions submitted on behalf of the appellants
\nrelating to the recovery of some of the M.Os. have not been clearly proved since
\nall the witnesses examined in this behalf have turned hostile. The other
\nsubmission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.2 in his
\nevidence stated that his signature was obtained from him by the police at the
\nhospital would show that earlier one another complaint was recorded from P.W.2
\nwhich has not been placed before the Court but suppressed. The learned counsel
\nconcluded his submission that the cumulative effect of the contradictions and
\ninfirmities found in the prosecution undoubtedly goes to show that the entire
\nprosecution case is an invented and distorted story designed by the prosecution
\nsuppressing the real facts before the trial court and therefore, in all
\nprobabilities all the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt
\nand acquitted of all the charges under which they now stand convicted.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in Ex.P.1
\nthe complaint preferred by P.W.1, the names of all the accused are clearly and
\nunmistakably mentioned. Similarly, the weapons used by each of the accused and
\nthe overtacts attributed to them have also been   clearly mentioned in Ex.P.1.
\nThe evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 demonstrably establishes the case of the
\nprosecution and though the P.W.5 was treated as hostile, his evidence supports
\nthe evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 so far as the participation of the appellants in
\nthe occurrence and the entire overtacts attributed to them as well the motive
\npart are concerned. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has clearly stated that A-1 and A-6 came
\nwith aruval at the scene of occurrence under such circumstances, the recovery of
\naruval in no way weaken the case of the prosecution. Further, it is the evidence
\nof P.W.2 that the statement was recorded only at 9.00 p.m. and thus, this piece
\nof evidence clearly supports the evidence of P.W.14.  Under such circumstances,
\nthe evidence deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2 in their chief examination that the police
\nhad arrived immediately after their admission, does not assume any significance
\nto accept the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellants that
\nthere should have been earlier complaint. Similarly, though recovery and Mahazar
\nwitnesses turned hostile, the other evidence  available on record and the
\nmedical evidence talling with the injuries sustained by the deceased and P.Ws.1
\nand 2 with the weapons as spoken by P.Ws.1,2 and 5 prove the case. Under such
\ncircumstances, no case has been made out by the appellants to disbelieve the
\ncase of the prosecution except pointing out some minor contradictions here and
\nthere which would be no way helpful to throw away the case of the prosecution.
\nUltimately, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
\nprosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the
\nconviction and sentence passed by the trial court has to be sustained and the
\nappeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.We have perused the materials available on record and carefully
\nconsidered the submissions made on both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The occurrence had taken place in the broad day light in the presence
\nof P.Ws.1,2 who are the brother and father of the deceased. P.W.5 is the nephew
\nof P.W.1 and grand son of P.W.2. Of the 19 witnesses examined P.W.1,2 and 5 are
\nalone eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws.3,4 and 7 to 10 and P.W.12 have
\nturned hostile. But of course, they are not material witnesses to speak anything
\nabout the occurrence. In this connection, P.W.5 though had clearly spoken about
\nthe occurrence in the chief examination, she had been treated as hostile witness
\nfor the simple reason that P.W.5 had not supported the prosecution case
\nregarding the recovery of some of the M.Os. and his attestation in the Mahazars.
\nNothing has been brought out in the cross examination of P.W.5 by the defence
\nlawyer adversely affecting the veracity of his evidence. Therefore, we accept
\nthis evidence serving as corroborative piece of evidence to that of P.Ws.1 and\n<\/p>\n
2.  As stated supra, the very presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 during the occurrence is
\nstrongly supported by the injuries sustained by them.  These injured eye
\nwitnesses speak about the motive part of for the murder. A perusal of Ex.P.1,
\nclearly reveals that after the death of the father of A-1, till 16.11.2006 at
\n03.00 p.m., A-1 and their relatives were creating commotion every now and then
\nregarding the taking the body of the father of A-1 through the street where the
\nhouse of the deceased is situated in spite of the fact that a separate public
\npath way was available to take the body to cremation. A careful scrutiny of the
\nevidence of prosecution witnesses would show a dispute was also pending  between
\nthe family of the deceased and of A-1. It was in such circumstances, this
\noccurrence had taken place. So far as the motive part is concerned, in our
\nopinion, the appellants have miserably failed to raise even an iota of doubt in
\nthe minds of the Courts. But on the contrary, the learned counsel for the
\nappellants made an attempt to shatter the case of the prosecution by pointing
\nout some infirmities found in the prosecution witnesses to establish that the
\noccurrence would not have taken place in the manner put forth by the prosecution
\nand the entire prosecution story as a distorted story designedly framed by false
\nevidence and fabricated documents.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Now let us analyse the submission made by the learned counsel for the
\nappellants one by one. The main submission made by the learned counsel for the
\nappellants is that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 shows that the police arrived at
\nthe Government Hospital immediately after their admission and it is also in the
\nevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they were admitted in the hospital within a short
\nspan of time from the time of occurrence which took place at 03.00 p.m. on
\n16.11.2006 and added that P.W.17, the Medical Officer, in his evidence stated
\nthat P.Ws.1 and 2 were admitted in the hospital at 04.10 p.m. on 16.11.2006,
\nunder such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.14 that he on receipt of
\nintimation, proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and
\nreturned to the police station and registered a case in Crime No.795 of 2006 by
\n9.00 p.m. is not an acceptable contention. Further, according to the learned
\ncounsel, the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 17 leads to a conclusion that the police
\nwould have arrived in the evening itself on the date of occurrence and
\nimmediately thereafter, P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police should have recorded a
\nReport much earlier which report is now suppressed and the present Ex.P.1 is
\nconcocted and substituted.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.We have carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. On going through
\nthe evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we find that they did not state anything about the
\nexact time of arrival of the police at Pudukkottai Government Hospital and what
\nthey have stated is immediately after their admission in the hospital the police
\nhad arrived.  Further more, P.W.1 has also stated in his evidence that he was
\nunconscious for more than one hour immediately after the admission. Under such
\ncircumstances, the doubt raised by the learned counsel for the appellants to
\nthrow away the case of the prosecution is not worthy of consideration. In fact
\nP.W.2 in his cross examination had clearly stated that a complaint was recorded
\nby P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, at 9.00 p.m. on 16.11.2006 which clearly
\ncorroborates the evidence of P.W.14. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept
\nthe submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. With regard to
\nthe other submission made by the defence counsel for the appellants that the
\nevidence of P.W.2, has stated that after A-1 delivered a cut with Aruval on the
\nhead of the deceased, A-6 snatched the same from A-1 and inflicted a cut on the
\nhead of the deceased. Therefore, the seizure of two aruvals pursuant to their
\nconfession would go to show that the prosecution case is concocted one. We are
\nof the opinion that the careful analysis of Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1
\nwould go to show that A-6 has also possessed with an aruval at the time of
\noccurrence. No conclusion can be even inferred with regard to the recovery of
\nthe two aruvals on the contention that each of A-1 and A-6 did not possess
\nseparate aruvals and therefore, we are not inclined to accept the theory of
\ndefence. No doubt there was some delay in despatching the First Information
\nReport to the Court. In our view, under such circumstances of the case, this
\ndelay alone is not sufficient to reject the case of the prosecution. In fact,
\nP.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, explains the delay saying that he recorded
\nthe statement at 9.00 p.m. and on the ext day morning at 10.00 a.m., the same
\nwas sent to the Judicial Magistrate. As stated supra,  though all the mahazar
\nwitnesses have turned hostile, the unimpeachable evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 5
\nwhich is cogent and convincing coupled with the medical evidence clearly  and
\ndemonstrably establish the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.  P.W.11,
\nthe Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy 8 days after the treatment in the
\nhospital, of course had stated that the crushed injuries found on the bony part
\nof the head of the deceased, in her admitted assumption would have probably been
\ninflicted by wooden log. On carefully going through the ocular testimony of
\nP.Ws.1,2 and 5 and taking into consideration the nature and situs of the
\ninjuries as described in the Post Mortem Certificate, providing supporting to
\nthe veracity of the case, we are of the firm view that the case against A-1, A-6
\nand A-7 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and case
\nas against A-4 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC are well
\nestablished and, therefore, we reject the submission of the learned defence
\ncounsel to throw away the prosecution case on the minor contradictions and
\nomissions appearing in this case cannot at all be acceded to.
\n\tFurther, the prosecution case on these insignificant and minor
\ncontradictions and omissions appearing here and there which would normally occur
\nin every case in such circumstances, in this case will never serve as a valid
\nground  to throw away the case overboard.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.In fine, we are of the opinion that no worthy reason has been made out
\nby the learned Senior counsel for the appellants to allow the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.In the result, we confirm the conviction and the sentences passed by
\nthe trial Court and dismiss the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t It is reported that the accused are on bail. The Sessions Judge concerned
\nis directed to take steps to secure the presence of the accused and commit them
\nto prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
sms.\n<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
The  Inspector of Police,
\n Ganesh Nagar Police Station
\n Pudukkottai District<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Senthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 12\/12\/2008 Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.REGUPATHI and The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH Criminal Appeal (MD)No.200 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal (MD)No.201 of 2008 1.Senthil … Appellant in Crl.A.No.200\/2008 2.Arangan 3.Chidambaram 4.Selvam … Appellants […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23791","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSenthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Senthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-21T12:58:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Senthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-21T12:58:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4838,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Senthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-21T12:58:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Senthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Senthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Senthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-21T12:58:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Senthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-21T12:58:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008"},"wordCount":4838,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008","name":"Senthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-21T12:58:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/senthil-vs-the-state-rep-by-the-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Senthil vs The State Rep. By The on 12 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23791","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23791"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23791\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23791"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23791"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23791"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}